Airport Owners Guide to Project Delivery Systems White Paper Update

Transcription

1 Airport Owners Guide to Project Delivery Systems White Paper Update Steve Riano Chair, ACC Project Delivery Committee Bechtel Infrastructure Corporation Fall 2011 ACI-NA Operations & Technical Affairs Committee Pre-Conference Seminar San Diego, CA October 15, 2011

2 Background and Purpose Alternative Project Delivery Systems (PDS) continue to challenge the industry An ACI-NA, ACC & AGC collaborative industry White Paper was published in 2006 Provides consistent PDS definitions and offers PDS performance data and selection guidance 2

3 The Need for an Update Lessons Learned from 5 years of ACI/ACC/AGC Airport PDS Summits Updated definitions New PDS Updated PDS performance metrics Emerging trends New industry and owner selection process guidance and examples Updated FAA position on use of Alternative PDS for AIP funded projects 3

4 The Update Team Sponsoring Organizations ACI-NA, Christopher Oswald ACC, T.J. Schulz AGC, Mike Stark Airports Phoenix Nashville Gatwick Southwest Florida San Diego Abu Dhabi Industry Representatives Hill International Walbridge TY LIN Holder Construction HOK CH2MHill Turner Construction Bechtel IMG 4

5 Lessons Learned Updated PDS and procurement definitions Integrated Project Delivery (IPD) is recognized as a PDS Latest FMI/CMAA Survey of Owners providing PDS performance metrics 5

6 Emerging Trends Greater levels of collaboration being exercised BIM and IPD are being integrated in PDS Sustainability influencing project delivery issues New financing methods/ppp shaping PDS decisions 6

7 Industry and Owner PDS Selection Guidance and Examples Airport Cooperative Research Program (ACRP) Construction Industry Institute (CII) Georgia State Financing and Investment Commission Selected Airport Owner PDS selection process examples and experience Roles and Responsibilities Design-Bid-Build Construction Management at Risk Design Build Parameters Players (DBB) (DB) O Available from PMO or CM Agency Available from PM and CM Available from PM and DB team Pre-Construction A/E Limited Engaged Fully committed Services C None Fully committed Fully committed Strong w/both A/E and CM; can obtain a balanced Excellent w/db team; harder to reach direct A/E O Strong w/a/e; low for Contractor in construction view; open with Trade contractors feedback. After GMP established, more limited Visibility (project A/E Strong w/owner; limited w/contractor Strong w/owner; limited w/cmr Excellent w/owner; trades & A/E are within DB team performance) C No visibility in design; closed book w/owner Excellent w/owner & A/E; controls trades Same as above. Approve budget and schedule and GMP (progressive); Approve budget and schedule; approve GMP; sign off O Approve budget and schedule sign off on trades (open book) on trades (open book) Cost/Schedule Design to cost with direct input from Construction A/E Provides engineer's estimate; design to cost Provides engineer's estimate; design to cost Planning Validation partner C None Fully engaged - prices obtained from trade community Fully engaged - prices obtained from trade community Reviews bids for trades/trade community signs off for O Bids prime Contractor; but limited visibility to subs Has good visibility of trades (open book) payment Contractor Bidding/Subcontractin A/E None None to limited Open book for construction trades g Controls subs for trades; closed book on costs to C Contracts with trades (open book) Same as above. Owner Board required approval of changes when thresholds Owner is arbitrator/changes will be fewer due to CMR's Owner has less involvement with changes - releases O are exceeded participation in design more control to DB team Change Management Involvement Has a collaborative involvement until design is Manages design specifications with the owner and sub A/E Performs design for changes (unforeseen/ complete trades/cost and schedule issues with the sub trades owner/contractor) High interest in maximizing profit from "changed CMR negotiates with sub trades unless items are C Same as above. conditions" clearly user generated or outside CMR responsibility Extensive owner involvement on conceptual and O Oversight of process with A/E Oversight of process w/ae; and CM support performance specification development Design A/E Responsible for accomplishing Responsible for accomplishing/multiple packages DB team coordinates owner decisions as required. Coordination/Review C No involvement CM fully engaged with early constructability input Same as above. O Writes plan; oversees implementation Writes plan; oversees implementation Writes plan; oversees implementation Commissioning/ A/E Designs to plan Designs to plan Design and execution of plan; selective collaboration Certification C Execution of plan; certification and training Execution of plan; collaboration during design process Same as above. O Fully responsible Responsible; with support from CM Reviews/oversees w/selective collaboration w/db team Constructability Review A/E Limited - provides inputs into design Limited; provides inputs into design DB team performs constructability C No involvement Collaborative with inputs during design phase Same as above. O Responsible for resolution Responsible for resolution Responsible for resolution Errors and Omissions A/E Corrective action Corrective action More difficult for discovery by owner, DB team responsible for correction C Discovery during construction/bidding Discovery during design and construction (reduced cost impact) Same as above. O Timely decision making, change approval, payment approval, checks cut Timely decisions; smarter about A/E and CMR interface Less decisions, must be more timely in decisions, must be more informed Management of Design, delivery E&O, RFI responses, submittal turnarounaround, but more collaborative, and Design delivery E&O, RFI responses, submittal turn- A/E Cost/Schedule Drivers timely DB team - A/E linked to contractor success C RFI's, submittals, changes submitted timely, coordination Must provide high quality information and better communication Same as above. O QA Quality program oversight/some testing Quality program oversight/some testing Control of Quality A/E QC in design phase QC in design; some QA in construction QA/QC in both design and construction C QC in construction phase QA/QC Same as above. 7

8 Updated FAA Project Funding Criteria Detailed history of Alternative PDS and FAA guidance Approved procurement and contracting methods Limitations when using AIP Types of projects addressed Strategies for working with FAA 8

9 Next Steps Complete the final editing process Obtain final review and approval from ACI, ACC and AGC executives Distribute to selected ACI member airports as well as ACC and AGC members for comments and incorporate feedback Introduce publically at the 2012 ACC/AAAE Planning, Design and Construction Symposium 9

10 Q&A 10